A&H

Melbourne City vs Western Utd penalty & RC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Usually isn’t always though @one , position of the arm etc, it’s a consideration!
So is "directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close" a consideration and usually as you highlighted. But the point was that you completely ignored the excepti
 
The Referee Store
So is "directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close" a consideration and usually as you highlighted. But the point was that you completely ignored the excepti
I, and a few others just don’t think it’s a deliberate HB... I accept the starfish jumps HBs but this clearly isn’t in that spirit of this makes bigger clause!
 
I, and a few others just don’t think it’s a deliberate HB... I accept the starfish jumps HBs but this clearly isn’t in that spirit of this makes bigger clause!
Nonsense. It clearly is in the spirit. The arm didn't need to be extended.

Nor does it matter that it's not deliberate, since that is only sufficient, not a necessary condition.

Whatever you might think the law should be, you're not thinking about what it actually is now.
 
Nonsense. It clearly is in the spirit. The arm didn't need to be extended.

Nor does it matter that it's not deliberate, since that is only sufficient, not a necessary condition.

Whatever you might think the law should be, you're not thinking about what it actually is now.
With all due respect to @Mintyref , this is my point. What "feels" like handball is irrelevant - the laws say this is HB so it is. For now at least.
 
What a load of utter tosh handball has become.
Arms, in a natural position for that sort of tackle.
Not making himself bigger by choice.
Arms on the floor so above the shoulder is entirely no relevant.
Not hand ball and in the words of my esteemed colleague, "play on".
Cheers father, it seems the madmen did take over the asylum after all!

RIP to the game we all loved!
 
With all due respect to @Mintyref , this is my point. What "feels" like handball is irrelevant - the laws say this is HB so it is. For now at least.
I am with you for OP being handball, but to be precise, the law says this is 'usually' handball. And that is what has caused a debate here.

Untill the law makers find a way of giving definitive definitions (without making a confusing), we will always have this debate.
 
There was an interview floating around a while back with one of the members of the IFAB technical committee, in which the interviewee talked about the process. The goal was to bring greater uniformity to what was an offense and what was not an offense. He talked about regional differences--plays where 100% of the south american reps thought was a clear handball and the English folks (and I forget who else) thought was clearly not an offense. I suspect this could be an example of one of those scenarios in which IFAB essentially sided with the south american view.
 
Obviously you have never given a pen and sent off a player for DOGSO for a non "challenge for the ball" before. Or seen any games that it has been done in. Do you watch or referee much football?

Most of those would involve some chance chat the player will "get away with it".
What was the defender's plan here?
 
Suarez, 2010, is the easiest example to point to, and there are numerous others available.

The defender doesn't have to know when the pullback is coming, or even that it is. They're committing to the tackle with the legs, but hedging their bet against the chance the attacker either sees them coming or makes that pass at exactly the wrong moment, by leaving the arm out.

There's a reason these offences have become known as "professional fouls" - because professionals know the potential short-term downsides for that match or that month are vastly outweighed by the potential mid-term and long-term gains for their team (and indirectly, for themselves).

It's far from silly to recognize that many players actually do know the laws and do play to and outside them tactical and strategically, particularly when it's literally their job to know that stuff (I know I sure as hell did, and do, and I'm never getting to that level). I would call it naivete to say otherwise.

Are you taking the Michael??
Suarez handles a ball ON THE LINE in the last few minutes of a game his team were winning!!!!
How can you even compare it to this incident???
 
Nonsense. It clearly is in the spirit. The arm didn't need to be extended.

Nor does it matter that it's not deliberate, since that is only sufficient, not a necessary condition.

Whatever you might think the law should be, you're not thinking about what it actually is now.

Sliding tackles without arms extended?
It's comical just to imagine
 
Are you taking the Michael??
Suarez handles a ball ON THE LINE in the last few minutes of a game his team were winning!!!!
How can you even compare it to this incident???
You were claiming that no player would ever choose to stick their arm out and be sent off to stop a good chance. Clearly it's happened - incidents of this kind are why the red card for DOGSO was originally created.
Don't get shirty with me because you want to backtrack or can't write clearly.
Sliding tackles without arms extended?
It's comical just to imagine
And yet plenty of players manage it just fine. The only comedy here is the pantomime of grasping at straws to justify not penalising this defender.
 
Most of those would involve some chance chat the player will "get away with it".
What was the defender's plan here?
To block the cross by whatever means possible. And he thought there was a chance he may get away with using his hands (and obvously had the referee though the same as you, he would have).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nij
And yet plenty of players manage it just fine.

Think you'll find that's called falling or in some circles diving! Whenever a person falls, deliberately or not, the arms are extended to either break the fall (that's why we have a collarbone) or support the body, an entirely natural thing to do.....
 
I have been thinking about this handball a lot, maybe too much. I've tried my best to jot down my thoughts. Below is the relevant law. I have replaced some bullet points with letters so I can refer to them later.


It is an offence if a player:
(a) deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball

...

It is usually an offence if a player:
• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
(b) the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
(c) the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
• ...
(d) directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
(e) if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger
(f) when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body


First, I will consider (a); was the arm-ball contact deliberate? The defender anticipated a shot from the attacker and attempted to block it by sliding. I do not believe the defender anticipated a pull-back; indeed, the attacker pulled the ball back intending to deceive the defender and the defender was falling to the ground before the ball was played. The arm-ball contact was not deliberate.

Next, I will immediately discount offense (c) because the defender’s arm always remained below his shoulder level; that is his arm was always closer to the ground than his shoulder.

Now, I will consider offense (b) – has the defender's hand/arm made his body unnaturally bigger? Interpreting the text literally, the answer is no – the defender's body is the same size. However, I suspect this is intended to be interpreted differently. Is the arm in an unnatural position? No, the arm is in a perfectly natural position for somebody falling to the ground and anticipating a shot rather than a pass. However, the defender has created an obstacle which the attacker would not expect; perhaps, the arm is in an unnatural position from the attacker’s point of view. I am unable to deduce the IFAB's intended interpretation; therefore, I will look to the following points for assistance and, hopefully, clarification.

I will now consider exception (d), which applies since the ball came directly from the foot of the attacker, who was close. However, it must be noted that these exceptions do not apply if offense (b) applies.

I will ignore exception (e) as I believe this is intended for a player who is standing rather than falling or lying on the ground. Again, there is uncertainty about when a player's body is unnaturally bigger.

Exception (f) does not apply because the defender's arm is extended laterally. Why shouldn't a player extend his arm laterally? Perhaps, the IFAB view this as an unnatural arm position in which case offense (b) may have been met. But, this is an assumption and is not mentioned in law. Since there is a lack of clarity, and exception (f) does not apply, I will disregard the text of (f).

This all hinges on whether the defender's arm made his body unnaturally bigger {(b)}. Without knowing IFAB's intended interpretation of ‘unnaturally bigger’, I am prepared to give more weight to the exception (d) because the ball was played by another player who was close and the arm contact with the ball was clearly accidental. To conclude, there was no handball offense. Not guilty. Case closed.
 
I have been thinking about this handball a lot, maybe too much. I've tried my best to jot down my thoughts. Below is the relevant law. I have replaced some bullet points with letters so I can refer to them later.


It is an offence if a player:
(a) deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball

...

It is usually an offence if a player:
• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
(b) the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
(c) the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
• ...
(d) directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
(e) if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger
(f) when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body


First, I will consider (a); was the arm-ball contact deliberate? The defender anticipated a shot from the attacker and attempted to block it by sliding. I do not believe the defender anticipated a pull-back; indeed, the attacker pulled the ball back intending to deceive the defender and the defender was falling to the ground before the ball was played. The arm-ball contact was not deliberate.

Next, I will immediately discount offense (c) because the defender’s arm always remained below his shoulder level; that is his arm was always closer to the ground than his shoulder.

Now, I will consider offense (b) – has the defender's hand/arm made his body unnaturally bigger? Interpreting the text literally, the answer is no – the defender's body is the same size. However, I suspect this is intended to be interpreted differently. Is the arm in an unnatural position? No, the arm is in a perfectly natural position for somebody falling to the ground and anticipating a shot rather than a pass. However, the defender has created an obstacle which the attacker would not expect; perhaps, the arm is in an unnatural position from the attacker’s point of view. I am unable to deduce the IFAB's intended interpretation; therefore, I will look to the following points for assistance and, hopefully, clarification.

I will now consider exception (d), which applies since the ball came directly from the foot of the attacker, who was close. However, it must be noted that these exceptions do not apply if offense (b) applies.

I will ignore exception (e) as I believe this is intended for a player who is standing rather than falling or lying on the ground. Again, there is uncertainty about when a player's body is unnaturally bigger.

Exception (f) does not apply because the defender's arm is extended laterally. Why shouldn't a player extend his arm laterally? Perhaps, the IFAB view this as an unnatural arm position in which case offense (b) may have been met. But, this is an assumption and is not mentioned in law. Since there is a lack of clarity, and exception (f) does not apply, I will disregard the text of (f).

This all hinges on whether the defender's arm made his body unnaturally bigger {(b)}. Without knowing IFAB's intended interpretation of ‘unnaturally bigger’, I am prepared to give more weight to the exception (d) because the ball was played by another player who was close and the arm contact with the ball was clearly accidental. To conclude, there was no handball offense. Not guilty. Case closed.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 Play on.... next 👌
 
It's the daft and poorly written law wording unfortunately. Do I think his brain got a message to put his arm out to block the pass? No I don't as there wasn't enough time.

But equally I think under the current laws the position of his arm means that it is on offence. Which means that what is essentially and unintentional handling offence is dealt with as intentional but that appears to be what the authorities want.
 
Debate was ok, drifted off topic , came back and the then began the inexorable slide towards personal attacks.

In short, we’re done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top